Eurovision 2017

I disagree. There was a runaway winner last night and the voting reveal didn't disguise that. It would work a bit better if they revealed the public vote in the order of how entrants finish in the jury vote rather than the order of the public vote so when you get towards the end unless you're really keeping track you don't know if the country has 3 or 300 points. Last night though with some of the high jury votes being revealed quite early in the public vote it was soon quite obvious Portugal lead wouldn't be beaten, especially once Italy had been declared.


I also disagree that one reveal at the very end makes things more "exciting". For me the slow build up of points and in close years the back and too between the front runners, makes a much more rewarding watch, even if there are a few results declared once the winner is known.

Eurovision Technical Breakdown/BTS:
https://twitter.com/i/moments/863546881900728320

That doesn't explain how the likes of Ed Sheeran and Adele manage to top the chart in nearly every country around the world.

Incidentally, Ireland televoters gave us 4 points, as did Malta.

Well, horses for courses.

Like many others, I was disappointed that the televoters dragged Lucie over to the right-hand side of the scoreboard.

I strongly disagree, however, that the UK should withdraw just because they haven't been doing very well in recent years (with the exception of Jade in '09). And what happens to all that EBU funding if they do withdraw?

There have been calls for Ireland to withdraw, too, over the last decade or so (certainly since Dustin the Turkey), and plenty this year after they failed to make it out of the semi for the fourth consecutive year. Again, however, I disagree - though I will say that RTE can't keep getting Louis Walsh involved when it comes to making their selection...

One thing's for sure: next year will be full of dreary ballads and then something totally opposite will win.

How is that for sure? You could have said that last year after 1944. There were a number of ballads this year, but the semis filtered out a few and I though the overall programme of songs last night was pretty varied.

The BBC has stepped up its game by reintroducing a selection show and that's paying dividends. What's needed now is more promotion overseas so the televote results improve. I don't really hold with Brexit being the only reason for our disappointing result, many of the 41 voting countries aren't in the EU either. Televoters vote for songs they like. They'll vote for stuff they've seen on their tv shows and heard on the radio. They'll also vote for stuff they 'get' either through shared language, culture or humour. I'm pretty sure Italy didn't do as well as some thought they would because a lot of people were wondering quite why a dancing gorilla was accompanying the performer.

Good on Lucie. I thought she did brilliantly. The UK's staging was the best for years, the song was good and was sung well. We've nothing to be ashamed about.

As for the show as a whole, the script and delivery of the presenters was pretty dire. Quite why three white men were chosen (especially given the slogan, something clearly not lost on Graham) I'll never know. There was too much cringey presenter chat with the audience for me, and it was all a bit flat.
The tele voting window being over half an hour also isn't much fun, leading to extended interval acts of varying quality.

Anyway, a good and worthy winner and I look forward to Portugal's first show!

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Maybe they were considered (and we may all disagree) the three best for job. Maybe they thought this line up would appeal to Eurovisions core fan base more than any other?

There has been all female presenting line ups in the past, and I doubt anyone complained about this then in terms of diversity. Also it seems the non-white population is very low in Ukraine, although that may be wrong. Would we have the same problem if say there were three of Ant & Dec and where the sole presenters here of completion if it was held here? People seem to be ignoring the fact an LGBT personality had very strong presence throughout the evening.

As for the slogan doesn't it seem be a variation on one of two themes every year?

I had no issue with the presenting team at all. Given the location having three young presenters helped the show move. At least we were spared as a result the usual boy-girl interplay that's normal in the set-up phase of the show.

It didn't drag at all as well, which I felt last year's effort did during the vote casting phase. It's clever that the audience vote verification now takes place during the jury run-through, which could in theory be extended at will (almost) if time was required to iron-out difficulties, padding with some ad-hoc interplay with the spokespersons.

What mystified me was the lack of a title sequence with graphic content. All three programmes relied on the stage symbol to do this. Surely an aston or similar saying 'Eurovision Song Contest' wouldn't have been a bad move.

Still I enjoyed the whole experience, again without Norton/Mills, using the SVT AppleTV feed to watch. Af Sillen and Zelmerlow only speaking sparingly throughout.

Onwards to 2018.....

The presenters were alright - it was odd how they went from being mega-cringe throughout the contest to being completely in control during the results. I thought they handled that part really well.

What did Portugal eventually end up getting points wise? After they announced the votes for Bulgaria they announced that Portugal had won it without saying what they got in the televote...

I think sometimes we're a bit unfair on the presenters when they're doing so not in the first language and the humour and culture is very different. It is afterall one of the reasons you have Graham (and Terry before him) there, so he can make gently make light of those differences and make things more relevant for us and to articulate what we are thinking. I thought although the jokes may have fallen flat they were pretty solid.